State Rights?
 

Man, what a can of worms this opens. http://news.yahoo.com/court-oklahoma...011240179.html

Seems to me this whole Sharia Law thing is just a feeding trough for idiots. Why don't we just ban contracts too. You can't trump actual laws. Sounds to me like they are trying to ban Sharia Law from contracts and binding arbitration. And that would be religious discrimination.

I guess I don't get it. Even in contract law, the laws of the country/state that its writen, trump. Why/how would a foreign law even be considered in a US court in the first place?

The states basically have no rights... Lincoln took them away and then this was compounded by the Federal Government. Congress has continually neutered any rights that the states have maintained after the Civil War. Every year they make news where the states have to follow or they don't get funding. These laws go well beyond the enumerated powers that are spelled out in the Constitution for the Federal Government. When the state legislature no longer picked the state senators the states lost their only advocate in Congress. By amending the Constitution with the 17th Amendment and allowing the election of senators versus their appointment by the state legislature we effectively ended states rights. Previously the states had a direct voice in Congress and could appoint senators that would be accountable to the will of the people, now the senators are accountable to the will of their campaign donors, not the people.

I think Thomas DiLorenzo explains it best and you can read all about it here!

This is the basis for "Social Justice" and for communism, Marx wrote an entire paper on this very subject. I will see if I can find it. You have to divide the people into separate classes.

In order to have more control of a people you have to start to interpret law based on the person who is under the law. This basically means that the law can be enforced differently depending on who is being viewed under the law. This is what Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor believe in. They think that the law should be interpreted differently based on the person. Luckily we have the 14th Amendment, and hopefully it will be enough to stop this trend.

One instance that I find very interesting is gun laws:

According to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...."

This is why I can drive my car in Wyoming with an Arizona driver's license. I have the right to do something in Arizona, therefore, Wyoming can't make a law that abridges the privilege of driving in Wyoming. The interesting part is when it comes to guns. I have an Arizona Concealed Carry License and can legally carry a concealed gun, but what happens when I go NY?

Marine faces 15 years behind bars for unknowingly violating gun law

A clear violation of the First Amendment.

What is?

Oklahoma's law.

What part and how? I can't seem to find an actual copy of the law. Please discuss your opinion. Like I said, I haven't read the new law, but how is this different from Catholic Law and state subsidized abortions? Again, the article doesn't really say what the issue is.

The proposed constitutional amendment is very short:

https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/questions/755.pdf

It's really pretty interesting and a remarkably stupid change to the constitution of the State of Oklahoma. Consider for instance, that large publicly traded corporations frequently borrow huge sums of money. Loans in the 9-10 figure range. It is very very very common that the money is put together by syndicates in London, and that the loan documents are governed by English law.

If asked to enforce such a loan document, if the Oklahoma amendment were adopted, Oklahoma courts would be unable to apply the laws of England, even though that's what the parties chose to govern their transaction.

One of the most ignorant pieces of legislation I've ever seen.

I'm not really sure how that would violate the 1st Amendment.

The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

I know what it says, I actually have the 1st ten memorized, but how is it a violation?

It specifically mentions one religion, while not another mention of any other religion. Favoring one religion over another is a clear violation of the establishment clause (which is what I meant to highlight). A constitutional scholar, such as yourself, should be able to see that clear as day.

No true...

^Did you mean to say "Not true...", as in what I posted is not true? If so explain how. Or did you, in fact, mean to say "No true...", as in I am correct?